Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
__COPY
w
...... §. -
~»'/,'::~, . v~·? v:-L~
w~
l\epublit of tbe ~bilippines ·~1:1~~·j.:~: ~-:·:i~J:~ourt
1
v
THIRD DIVISION
- versus -
Promulgated:
20~-~
Respon~~:~----------~~::::::_.:;z:.:_:_:::
April:•
EMILIO CONAG, ______ x
x--------------------------------------
DECISION
REYES, J.:
Designated Additional Member per Raffie dated January 21, 2015 vice Associate Justice Diosdado
M. Peralta.
1
Rollo, pp. 26-75.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta
and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring; id. at 77-86.
3
Rendered by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles, with Commissioners Perlita B.
Velasco and Romeo L. Go concurring; id. at 194-203.
4
Rendered by Labor Arbiter Fedriel S. Panganiban; id. at 183-192.
d
Decision 2 G.R. No. 212382
Id. at 78.
6
Id.
7
Id.
Id. at 147.
9
Id. at 149.
10
ll
Id. at 163.
II
Id. at 185.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 212382
as a seafarer. 12
Ruling of the LA
reads:
All other claims are hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 19
l
20
Id. at 194-203.
21
Id. at 198-199.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 212382
Ruling of the CA
22
Id. at 199.
23
611 Phil. 291 (2009).
24
Rollo, pp. 199-202.
25
Id. at 205-206.
26
Id. at 85.
27
Id. at 87-124.
A
Decision 5 G.R. No. 212382
Conag.
Grounds
28
Id. at 32-33.
29
See CBL Transit, Inc. v. NLRC, 469 Phil. 363, 371 (2004).
30
Tagle v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management, Phils., Inc., GR. No. 209302, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA
677, 687.
i'l
Decision 6 G.R. No. 212382
resolve factual issues, the Court has in exceptional cases delved into them
where there is insufficient evidence to support their findings, or too much is
deduced from the bare facts submitted by the parties, or the LA and the
31
NLRC came up with conflicting findings, as the Court has found in this
case.
[T]he seafarer, upon sign-off from his vessel, must report to the
company-designated physician within three (3) days from an-ival for
diagnosis and treatment. For the duration of the treatment but in no
case to exceed 120 days, the seaman is on temporary total disability as he
is totally unable to work. He receives his basic wage during this period
until he is declared fit to work or his temporary disability is acknowledged
by the company to be permanent, either partially or totally, as his
condition is defined under the POEA [-SEC] and by applicable Philippine
laws. If the 120 days initial period is exceeded and no such declaration is
made because the seafarer requires further medical attention, then the
temporary total disability period may be extended up to a maximum of
240 days, subject to the right of the employer to declare within this period
that a permanent partial or total disability already exists. The seaman may
of course also be declared fit to work at any time such declaration is
justified by his medical condition. 35 (Citations omitted and italics in the
original)
31
Nisda v. Sea Serve Maritime Agency, et al., supra note 23, at 3 11.
32
C.F. Sharp Crew Management, inc., et al. v. Taok, 691 Phil. 521, 533 (2012).
33
Id.; Tagle v. Anglo-Eastern Crew Management, Phils., Inc., supra note 30, at 688.
34
588 Phil. 895 (2008).
35
Id. at 912.
36
691 Phil. 521 (2012).
1[
Decision 7 G.R. No. 212382
justify an extension of the period to. 240 days; (b) 240 days had
lapsed without any certification being issued by the company-designated
physician; (c) the company-designated physician declared that he is
fit for sea duty within the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case
may be, but his physician of choice and the doctor chosen under
Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of a contrary opinion; (d)
the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially
permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his
own and jointly with his employer, believed that his disability is not
only permanent but total as well; (e) the company-designated
physician recognized that he is totally and permanently disabled but
there is a dispute on the disability grading; (f) the company-designated
physician determined that his medical condition is not compensable
or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and
the third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found
otherwise and declared him unfit to work; (g) the company-designated
physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but the
employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and (h) the
company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently
disabled within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains
incapacitated to perform his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said
37
periods.
37
Id. at 538-539.
38
G.R. No. 203472, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA 631.
39
POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10, series of 2010, Amended Standard Terms and Conditions
Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Ships, October 26,
2010.
Section 20-A(6) provides:
In case of permanent total or partial disability of the seafarer caused by either injury or
illness the seafarer shall be compensated in accordance with the schedule of benefits enumerated
in Section 32 of this Contract. Computation of his benefits arising from an illness or disease shall
be governed by the rates and the rules of compensation applicable at the time the illness or disease
was contracted.
The disability shall be based solely on the disability gradings provided under Section 32
of this Contract, and shall not be measured or determined by the number of days a seafarer is
under treatment or the number of days in which sickness allowance is paid.
A
40
Magsaysay Maritime Corporation v. Simbqjon, supra note 38, at 652-653.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 212382
41
Rollo, p. 150.
42
Id. at 30.
I
43
GR. No. 194362, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 53.
44
Supra note 38.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 212382
A review of the petitioners' evidence reveals that both the CA and the
LA glossed over vital facts which would have upheld the fitness to work
assessment issued by the company-desi~nated physicians. The petitioners
cited a certification by the ship master, 4 which Conag has not denied, that
the ship's logbook carried no entry whatsoever from March 28 to August 25,
2009 of any accident on board in which Conag could have been involved.
Instead, Conag's medical repatriation form shows that he was sent home
because of a "big pain on his left kidney, kidney stones." 47 In their final
report dated December 1, 2009, 48 Drs. Lim and Go of the MMC certified
that he was first "cleared urologic-wise" upon his repatriation. The NLRC
also noted that Conag mentioned no particular incident at work on deck
which could have caused his spinal pain.
45
Rollo, p. 84.
46
Id. at 151.
47
Id. at 29.
48
Id. at 147.
49
Id. at 148.
50
The straight-leg-raise test (or (Lasegue :~ s(r;n) is the most sensitive test for lumbar disk herniation,
with a negative result strongly indicating against lumbar disk herniation.
<http://www.aafp.org/afp/2008/100l/p835.htm> viewed March 29, 2016; id.
)
Decision IO G.R. No. 212382
51
Rollo, pp. 200-201.
52
671 Phil. 56 (2011).
53
591 Phil. 839 (2008).
54
Id. at 852.
55
613 Phil. 696 (2009).
A
56
Id. at 711.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 212382
The Court finds it significant that both the LA and the CA concluded,
on the basis alone of a diagnosis of "Mild Lumbar Levoconvex Scoliosis [left
curvature of the spinal column in the lower back, Ll to LS] and Spondylosis;
Right SJ Nerve Root Compression," that Conag suffered serious spinal
injuries which caused his total disability. Nowhere is the nature of this
injury or condition described or explained, or that it could have been the
result of strain or an accident while Conag was aboard ship, not to mention
that it was only a "mild" case. Dr. Chuasuan noted in his December 1, 2009
report that Conag was now free from pain and had regained full range of
trunk movement: "Negative Straight Leg Raising Test. Full trunk range of
motion, (-) pain. Fit to return to work." For 95 days, Conag underwent
therapy and medication, and Dr. Chuasuan's final Lasegue 's sign test to see
if his low back pain had an underlying herniated disk (slipped disc) was
negative.
57
Supra note 4 3.
l
Decision 12 G.R. No. 212382
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
....
-~
ARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
FRANCI~ZA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
( consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
CERTIFICATION
... I'-· .
,... , ,,
. , .... '·· .·
. ' .
:':.f!!if-
". _, .
: I"' , ~f c o u rt
.. v
#\
MAY Z 6 2016